The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	So Identical to giving directly to the person & waiting 7 years. The trust has not saved ant tax whatsoever. No need for an apology from myself as your claim "inter vivos trusts absolutely do avoid IHT." it totally untrue.

It’s the inter vivos bit that matters. Not sure where you went to school, but obviously somewhere that didn’t teach Latin. Inter vivos just means between the living. I hope your millions are left tax free for some major public school education for the beneficiary

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	It’s the inter vivos bit that matters. Not sure where you went to school, but obviously somewhere that didn’t teach Latin. Inter vivos just means between the living. I hope your millions are left tax free for some major public school education for the beneficiary

The trust has not saved a single penny of tax, a gift 7 years before death is free from IHT, the inter vivos bit is totally irrelevant as you should be able to understand.

[Sky]

Driving up the M1 this morning, there was a highlight sign over the motorway:

Driving to the EU
New docs
Nov 1

😶

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The trust has not saved a single penny of tax, a gift 7 years before death is free from IHT, the inter vivos bit is totally irrelevant as you should be able to understand.

I never said any different. You said that trusts don’t save on IHT, so I gave you an example of a trust that did.

Case closed, sorry, QED.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	I never said any different. You said that trusts don’t save on IHT, so I gave you an example of a trust that did. Case closed, sorry, QED.

	Quote:
	https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...dance-package/ One wonders why certain elements seem hell bent on getting out of the EU so quickly...Oh wait... "The member states have to implement the directive in their national law by 1 January 2020."

It has saved zero tax, it's tax neutral.

So what is your actual point of the rich needing to leave the EU by 1 Jan 2020 ?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It has saved zero tax, it's tax neutral. So what is your actual point of the rich needing to leave the EU by 1 Jan 2020 ?

One of the pillars of the above law is a crackdown on aggressive tax planning.

Another is funnelling money abroad to avoid tax. Nobody in the cabinet would dream of that.

Where do the right wing newspapers (and the graun, I think) base their companies and where do the owners live and not pay tax?

It’s all pretty obvious, innit?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	One of the pillars of the above law is a crackdown on aggressive tax planning. Another is funnelling money abroad to avoid tax. Nobody in the cabinet would dream of that. Where do the right wing newspapers (and the graun, I think) base their companies and where do the owners live and not pay tax? It’s all pretty obvious, innit?

There is no tax planning or tax avoidance in your example.
UK now has a facilitation of tax evasion for companies, far more than any EU laws.

If the owners live abroad, they won't have a UK personal tax liability.

Having a foreign registered company won't effect a UK taxpayer as dividend's & capital gains are taxed in the UK anyway.

All tax neutral, you have yet to show anything that avoids tax.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	Where do the right wing newspapers (and the graun, I think) base their companies and where do the owners live and not pay tax? It’s all pretty obvious, innit?

Accountant brother-in-law has been saying this from day 1.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	There is no tax planning or tax avoidance in your example. UK now has a facilitation of tax evasion for companies, far more than any EU laws. If the owners live abroad, they won't have a UK personal tax liability. Having a foreign registered company won't effect a UK taxpayer as dividend's & capital gains are taxed in the UK anyway. All tax neutral, you have yet to show anything that avoids tax.

and I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	and I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Which proves you have no argument & you admit to being a conman

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I'm a long way from being anonymous. There are several people on this forum, and some in this thread, who I know in real life. One thing about this forum, probably more than many you will encounter, is that a high percentage of the members work in science based professions (not me), so you rarely get to state something 'as fact' without being required to back it up with a varifiable source. Personally, I crave facts. Know your audience. Exit polls in the UK are taken from a random sample of approx. 20k people across the country, which by any measure is a small sample size. An exit poll was not performed for the 2016 EU Referendum because there was no previous data to compare it to as the last referendum was 40yrs previously and also did not have an exit poll. I'm giving you just 4 of the dozens of links, and have chosen from sources across the political spectrum, which took less than 30 seconds. https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ndum-exit-poll https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-polit...erendum-result https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7094886.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3279081.html So you see Tony, you don't get to spout erroneous 'facts' without being challenged here. Most of us have learned that and willingly provide sources. It's good manners.

So there was no exit poll, where I never said there was. This is arguing a point that was never made. Are you able to disprove what is generally accepted as what happened with regards to the vote? There’s a reason that certain Remainers keep referring to the number of OAPs that have died since the referendum in 2016.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Are you able to disprove what is generally accepted as what happened with regards to the vote?

You wrote;
"When looking at the referendum result by social grade, lower social grade groups voted to leave while the higher ones voted to remain."

It's entirely up to you to define the 'social grades' you refer to, and to prove that these were used as a measure to quantify the referendum result. You've repeatedly failed to offer a single link, explanation, example or evidence for your claim along with evidence that your claim is 'generally accepted'. Amongst whom (?) for example. The onus is upon you to clarify and quantify your statement in order to legitimise it.

[curley]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	You wrote; "When looking at the referendum result by social grade, lower social grade groups voted to leave while the higher ones voted to remain." It's entirely up to you to define the 'social grades' you refer to, and to prove that these were used as a measure to quantify the referendum result. You've repeatedly failed to offer a single link, explanation, example or evidence for your claim along with evidence that your claim is 'generally accepted'. Amongst whom (?) for example. The onus is upon you to clarify and quantify your statement in order to legitimise it.

It's the euivalent of Trump's new English: "Many people don't know that" and "lots of people say ...."

You just gotta believe it, blueangel, lots of people do

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	curley
	You just gotta believe it, blueangel, lots of people do

Like those facebook posts that say 'I bet you can't name a capital city beginning with A' and a few hundred thousand people answer with Amsterdam and Athens.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Like those facebook posts that say 'I bet you can't name a capital city beginning with A' and a few hundred thousand people answer with Amsterdam and Athens.

Abu Dhabi, Abuja, Accra, Addis Ababa, Algiers, Amman
I will go and get my coat now!

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	There is no tax planning or tax avoidance in your example. UK now has a facilitation of tax evasion for companies, far more than any EU laws. If the owners live abroad, they won't have a UK personal tax liability.

How much is due if they live domestically?

Let's say we both reside in London and are fully taxed by the UK. You give £1mln to me, how much tax is due on that, and when?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Which proves you have no argument & you admit to being a conman

Oh FMF...

Had the Grosvenor estate bequeathed to the new Duke of Westminster been liable for 40% inheritance tax, the amount owed to the Treasury would have been not far off the government’s entire death duty take for the last financial year.
Hugh Grosvenor, however, avoids a significant cut to his £9bn inheritance because the estate is held in a trust.
Britain’s generous trust law ensures that the country’s largest fortunes are largely kept intact. This is borne out by statistics which show that duties are a modest source of revenue for the Treasury. HMRC collected total tax of £534bn in 2015-16, of which inheritance tax receipts represented £4.7bn.

You were saying?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Oh FMF... Had the Grosvenor estate bequeathed to the new Duke of Westminster been liable for 40% inheritance tax, the amount owed to the Treasury would have been not far off the government’s entire death duty take for the last financial year. Hugh Grosvenor, however, avoids a significant cut to his £9bn inheritance because the estate is held in a trust. Britain’s generous trust law ensures that the country’s largest fortunes are largely kept intact. This is borne out by statistics which show that duties are a modest source of revenue for the Treasury. HMRC collected total tax of £534bn in 2015-16, of which inheritance tax receipts represented £4.7bn. You were saying?

The trust has to pay tax 6% of the value of the estate every 10 years, it's not a tax free transfer as you imply.
Of course in CH depending on canton there can be zero tax paid on death to direct line heirs. Some EU countries have 0% regardless of who inherits.

You have to remember this is a very old trust, a new trust would pay an additional 20% when its set up in the first place.

How does leaving the EU benefit the Grosvenor estate in any way? Not al all is the answer.

UK & Ireland have the highest inheritance taxes in the EU.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I watched this leak to the FT spreading last night and if you have social media away from here, this is something people need to be absolutely clear on. FT have deliberately not put it behind their usual firewall. Quote: The British government is planning to diverge from the EU on regulation and workers’ rights after Brexit, despite its pledge to maintain a “level playing field” in prime minister Boris Johnson’s deal, according to an official paper shared by ministers this week.

Of course they do. Why else would one object to being subject to EU regulations and ECJ rulings?

Plus, an FTA with the USA is extremely unlikely without significant reductions in food standards as the US will want to include the agricultural sector.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	You wrote; "When looking at the referendum result by social grade, lower social grade groups voted to leave while the higher ones voted to remain." It's entirely up to you to define the 'social grades' you refer to, and to prove that these were used as a measure to quantify the referendum result. You've repeatedly failed to offer a single link, explanation, example or evidence for your claim along with evidence that your claim is 'generally accepted'. Amongst whom (?) for example. The onus is upon you to clarify and quantify your statement in order to legitimise it.

If you are curious as to the meaning of “social grades” in the UK then you can use google. It’s not up to me to take you by the hand and show you what they are. Once you’ve found that out, you can then do a search for “Brexit result by social grade” and you’ll find lots of nice results giving a breakdown of which social classes voted for remain and leave. There’s some margin for error of course, but there are organisations willing to pay a lot of money to ensure this data is accurate. Do report back if you find any of them not agreeing with what I said with regards to lower income groups tending to vote for leave.

You know all this of course, and you’re not actually interested in what I said. This is the tiresome aspect in online discussion. I made a perfectly reasonable statement, but rather than trying to refute it, you’d prefer to try and catch me out by having me breakdown and explain every word in its minutest detail. Well sorry, I don’t play this game.